Navy Pier Chicago, Illinois - AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT - www.uli.org
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
AN AD VIS O RY S E R V IC E S PA N E L R E P ORT
Navy Pier
Chicago, Illinois
www.uli.org
Navy Pier Chicago, Illinois Celebrate Chicago at Navy Pier February 21–26, 2010 August 29–September 1, 2010 An Advisory Services Program Report Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20007-5201
About ULI
T
he mission of the Urban Land Institute is to Sustaining a diverse global network of local prac-
provide leadership in the responsible use of tice and advisory efforts that address current and
land and in creating and sustaining thriving future challenges.
communities worldwide. ULI is committed to
Established in 1936, the Institute today has nearly
Bringing together leaders from across the fields 30,000 members worldwide, representing the entire
of real estate and land use policy to exchange best spectrum of the land use and development disci-
practices and serve community needs; plines. Professionals represented include developers,
builders, property owners, investors, architects,
Fostering collaboration within and beyond ULI’s
public officials, planners, real estate brokers, ap-
membership through mentoring, dialogue, and praisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers, academics,
problem solving; students, and librarians.
Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation, ULI relies heavily on the experience of its members.
regeneration, land use, capital formation, and It is through member involvement and information
sustainable development; resources that ULI has been able to set standards of
Advancing land use policies and design practices excellence in development practice. The Institute has
that respect the uniqueness of both built and natu- long been recognized as one of the world’s most re-
ral environments; spected and widely quoted sources of objective infor-
mation on urban planning, growth, and development.
Sharing knowledge through education, applied
research, publishing, and electronic media; and
Cover photo: Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority.
©2010 by the Urban Land Institute
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Suite 500 West
Washington, DC 20007-5201
All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or
any part of the contents without written permission of the
copyright holder is prohibited.
2 An Advisory Services Panel Report
About ULI Advisory Services
T
he goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Program is A major strength of the program is ULI’s unique
to bring the finest expertise in the real estate ability to draw on the knowledge and expertise of
field to bear on complex land use planning and its members, including land developers and own-
development projects, programs, and policies. ers, public officials, academics, representatives of
Since 1947, this program has assembled well over 400 financial institutions, and others. In fulfillment of the
ULI-member teams to help sponsors find creative, mission of the Urban Land Institute, this Advisory
practical solutions for issues such as downtown re- Services panel report is intended to provide objective
development, land management strategies, evalua- advice that will promote the responsible use of land
tion of development potential, growth management, to enhance the environment.
community revitalization, brownfields redevelop-
ment, military base reuse, provision of low-cost and ULI Program Staff
affordable housing, and asset management strategies,
among other matters. A wide variety of public, pri- Marta V. Goldsmith
vate, and nonprofit organizations have contracted for Senior Vice President, Community/
ULI’s Advisory Services. Education Provost
Each panel team is composed of highly qualified Thomas W. Eitler
professionals who volunteer their time to ULI. They Vice President, Advisory Services
are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and
screened to ensure their objectivity. ULI’s interdisci- Caroline Dietrich
plinary panel teams provide a holistic look at devel- Panel Associate, Advisory Services
opment problems. A respected ULI member who has
previous panel experience chairs each panel. Cary Sheih
The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is inten- Senior Associate, Professional Development
sive. It includes an in-depth briefing day composed
of a tour of the site and meetings with sponsor repre- Gwen McCall
sentatives, a day of hour-long interviews of typically Senior Administrative Manager, Community
50 to 75 key community representatives, and two
days of formulating recommendations. Long nights James A. Mulligan
of discussion precede the panel’s conclusions. On the Managing Editor
final day on site, the panel makes an oral presenta-
tion of its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. A Lise Lingo, Publications Professionals LLC
written report is prepared and published. Manuscript Editor
Because the sponsoring entities are responsible for Betsy VanBuskirk
significant preparation before the panel’s visit, in- Creative Director
cluding sending extensive briefing materials to each
member and arranging for the panel to meet with Craig Chapman
key local community members and stakeholders in Senior Director, Publishing Operations
the project under consideration, participants in ULI’s
five-day panel assignments are able to make accurate
assessments of a sponsor’s issues and to provide rec-
ommendations in a compressed amount of time.
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 3
Acknowledgments
T
he panel wishes to thank the city of Chicago and the panel visit. Without their involvement, this panel
the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority would not have been possible.
(MPEA) for sponsoring this panel. Thanks
go out to Mayor Richard M. Daley and MPEA The panel would also like to thank the more than
Trustee Jim Reilly for their commitment to Navy Pier 80 stakeholders, citizens, business leaders, and
as the city’s most visible and visited tourist attraction. community organizations who participated in this
panel. With all the priorities and work facing the
Thanks also go to Steve Haemmerle, executive direc- city, the MPEA staff, the business community, and
tor of development, and Marilynn Gardner, general citizens, these people were unsparing of their time
manager of Navy Pier, and the others on the staff of and involvement.
the MPEA for their hard work both before and during
4 An Advisory Services Panel Report
Contents ULI Panel and Project Staff 6 Introduction 7 Overview and History of Navy Pier 8 Near-Term Recommendations 9 Background and Context 18 Conclusion 31 About the Panel 32 Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 5
ULI Panel and Project Staff
Chair Brad Merriman
Principal
Daniel C. Van Epp
Management Resources
President
Tustin, California
The Van Epp Companies, LLC
Executive Vice President
Tom Murphy
Newland Communities
Senior Resident Fellow, ULI/Klingbeil Family Chair
Las Vegas, Nevada
for Urban Development
Urban Land Institute
Panel Washington, D.C.
Walter Bialas
Real Estate Consultant Frank Stanek
Alexandria, Virginia President
Stanek Global Advisors
Daniel Brents Greenfield, California
Daniel Brents Consulting
Houston, Texas Kenneth Voigt
Ayres Associates
J. Kirby Fowler, Jr. Waukesha, Wisconsin
President
Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, Inc. George Wade
Executive Director Principal
Downtown Management Authority Bay Laurel Advisors
Baltimore, Maryland Los Angeles, California
Chuck Kubat ULI Project Staff
President
Tom Eitler
Kubat Consulting, LLC
Vice President, Advisory Services
Las Vegas, Nevada
Cary Sheih
Robert E. Kuhns
Project Manager
Director of Traffic and Transportation Planning
Clark Nexsen Architecture & Engineering
Carolyn Dietrich
Washington, D.C.
Panel Associate
6 An Advisory Services Panel Report
Introduction
A
t the request of the Metropolitan Pier and Ex- assumed that some portion of the October 2010 bond
position Authority (MPEA), the ULI Advisory issuance by the MPEA could be used first to partially
Services Program convened a panel in Febru- catch up on deferred maintenance and second for
ary and August 2010 to assist in the creation capital improvements. In addition, some private
of a vision for Navy Pier. Originally studied by ULI funding was assumed to be available for certain rede-
in 1989 and subsequently redeveloped using many velopment options.
of ULI’s early recommendations, Navy Pier has op-
erated successfully for two decades with only minor The August panel reviewed the earlier recommen-
changes along the way. dations and concluded that, first, the MPEA should
answer a call to action regarding the confirmation
At the time the February panel was held, the leader- of its purpose and mission, focus on governance and
ship of the MPEA and its very constitution as the leadership at the pier, and then immediately craft a
governing body of Navy Pier were in flux. In spring long-term strategic plan that would guide Navy Pier
2010, the MPEA board was disbanded, and a trustee through its next decade. Such a plan is a necessary
was appointed by the state legislature to manage the step in beginning a redevelopment program that is
affairs of the Authority and craft a recommendation consistent with the long-term vision for Navy Pier.
to the state legislature, the governor of Illinois, and Next, the panel sought to prioritize how the MPEA
the mayor of Chicago for long-term governance of might spend capital dollars, as they become avail-
Navy Pier. able, on a series of improvement projects. Finally,
the panel offered its thoughts on several other issues
In May 2010, the trustee contacted ULI and requested that are less critical to the near-term action plan
that the Advisory Services Program reconvene a but still warrant consideration. The first part of this
panel consisting of some of the original panel mem- report outlines the near-term recommendations. It is
bers. Its task would be to formulate a set of near- followed by the vision for Navy Pier and the context
term recommendations based on its earlier findings within which the recommendations were made.
and consistent with the vision and guiding principles
it had developed, but with a focus on near-term
implementation, recognition of the current economic
conditions, and an understanding of the limited
availability of public and private capital. The panel
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 7
Overview and History
of Navy Pier
T
“The Lakefront by he 3,300-foot-long Navy Pier is located on the to manage and operate both McCormick Place—the
Chicago shoreline of Lake Michigan near the city’s primary convention facility—and Navy Pier.
right belongs to the
Streeterville area, close to Chicago’s downtown Soon thereafter, the MPEA embarked on a multiyear
people. It affords core. Envisioned as one of two grand piers by $150 million redevelopment of the pier. By 1995, the
their one great un- architect and urban planner Daniel Burnham and his redesigned Navy Pier was introduced to the public,
associates in the influential 1909 Plan of Chicago, Mu- eventually becoming the mixed-use entertainment
obstructed view,
nicipal Pier #2 was built in 1916 to serve as a mixed- and meeting venue that it is today.
stretching away to purpose piece of public infrastructure. It was renamed
The redevelopment of the pier in the mid-1990s led
the horizon, where Navy Pier in 1927. Municipal Pier #1 was never built.
to more than 15 years of successful operation. Navy
water and clouds Throughout its nearly 100 years of storied history, Pier continues to be the largest single visitor draw in
seem to meet.” Navy Pier’s fortunes have fluctuated widely as its the city and in Illinois. To continue this success, in
uses have gradually changed. Since its inception as a 2010 the MPEA requested that ULI assemble two pan-
—Daniel Burnham, major public lakefront amenity, the pier has had uses els. The first, held in February, provided the MPEA
1909 ranging from a temporary jail, a traffic court, and a with a long-term vision. The second, held in August,
Navy training facility to a campus of the University provided the MPEA with recommendations on
of Illinois to the site of renowned summer music near-term strategies for redevelopment that would
festivals and celebrations. In its current incarna- respond to the purpose and mission of Navy Pier and
tion as the city’s playground, Navy Pier features an be consistent with the long-term vision.
iconic 45-meter-tall Ferris wheel, Chicago Children’s
Museum, the Chicago Shakespeare Theater, shops,
restaurants, and an exhibition hall. The pier and its
facilities encompass approximately 50 acres of parks,
gardens, shops, restaurants, and other entertainment
attractions. Despite being Chicago’s number one
tourist attraction, Navy Pier’s attendance is highly
seasonal. Opportunities for rejuvenation are thus
abundant.
In 1989, the city of Chicago retained ULI to evalu-
ate the future use and programming of Navy Pier,
which resulted in a series of recommendations. That
same year, the state legislature created the MPEA
8 An Advisory Services Panel Report
Near-Term Recommendations
T
he August panel focused on an actionable and entertainment, and other appropriate uses organized
realistic approach to redevelopment in the in a self-sustaining business framework.”
face of the severe global, national, and lo-
cal economic recession. It identified call-to- Governance
action issues that require the MPEA’s immediate at- All across the United States, cities are afflicted with
tention and suggested five top priorities for how the “it’ll do” disease. Because there are just too many
the MPEA might spend capital dollars as they be- other priorities, not enough money, and other things
come available. The panel also commented on sev- to do, a city lives with what it has and does the best it
eral other issues that are less critical to the near-term can. Since the time of Burnham and the 1893 World’s
action plan, but nonetheless important issues for Fair, Chicago has been known as a city that is not
consideration. plagued by this disease. In recent years, Chicago has
continued to be recognized as a city that demands
Call-to-Action Issues excellence—in its parks, in public housing and the
development of neighborhoods, and in libraries.
The following issues are critical steps that the MPEA,
the city, and the state must consider as they endure When Navy Pier was conceived and developed in the
the current recession. The panel believes that ad- 1990s, it followed that tradition. Since then it seems
dressing these issues now will put in place the steps that the MPEA has settled into “it’ll do” mode, trying
necessary to implement a strategy for reinvestment to do the best with the resources available. The pier
and additional development at Navy Pier. continues to be successful, but it could be more suc-
cessful and provide a better experience and a more
Confirmation of Mission and Purpose dynamic front door to Chicago.
It is essential for the MPEA to reaffirm the purpose
First, the pier needs a champion—a voice speaking
and mission of Navy Pier in a formal, short, written
and advocating only for Navy Pier. That is why the
statement. The mission should guide the actions of
panel thinks that revamping the board structure that
the MPEA, spell out its overall goals, provide a sense
governs the pier is essential. The panel suggests that
of direction, and guide decision making. It provides
prominent civic and public leaders be asked to serve
the framework or context within which strategies for
on a board for Navy Pier. It could take the form of
Navy Pier are formulated. This confirmation exercise,
a separate not-for-profit entity or an independent
while relatively straightforward, requires recognition
subsidiary of the MPEA, either having the ability
and acceptance from a variety of entities and indi-
to contract for certain management services from
viduals. It does not require unconditional consensus.
the MPEA. The panel believes that a mere advisory
The MPEA must take into account the interests of a
board is not a strong enough entity to play the role
diverse set of stakeholders and ultimately formulate
of a champion. In addition, the panel believes that
actions that are in the best interest of the community
the concept of a Friends of Navy Pier be internalized
and the Authority.
within a governing not-for-profit entity or devel-
Based on the interviews with stakeholders, the panel oped as a partner with an independent subsidiary of
suggests starting with the following language: “Navy the MPEA., The purpose of such a body would be to
Pier’s mission is to celebrate the vitality of Chicago by provide advocacy and fundraising for Navy Pier.
fostering a public place to serve the people of Chicago
and present its cultural fabric to the world. The pier
will be an eclectic mix of retail, cultural, recreational,
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 9The institutional capacity to achieve additional Program Plan. The program plan, which should be
development and manage day-to-day operations based on the business objectives, should evaluate
will require a new structure for the staff of Navy Pier the market and determine the correct mix of retail,
and a new attitude about the potential of the pier. food, entertainment, cultural, and supporting event
The CEO and staff need to have a clear mandate of uses to support the purpose and mission of Navy
responsibility and authority to carry out the mission. Pier. It should evaluate space and consider several
No effort will succeed without that mandate. Because approaches so that the use of the limited space can be
the new developments on the pier will be iterative, optimized to carry out the pier’s mission.
the leadership will need to be consistent and entre-
preneurial if it is to respond successfully to oppor- Master Land Use and Infrastructure Plan. The master
tunities. As the Navy Pier changes, the staff needs to land use and infrastructure plan should fulfill the
maintain a continuous commitment to quality service role of the physical master plan for the Navy Pier.
and particularly a strong commitment to excellence The overarching goals and direction of this plan will
in design. have been established in the previous sections of the
comprehensive long-term strategic plan. The master
When dealing with the day-to-day challenges of run- land use and infrastructure plan should establish
ning an operation as people intensive as Navy Pier, clear districts for use types; recognize appropriate
it is hard to think about next year. Yet for the pier to uses by geographic location; distinguish incompatible
grow and the staff to develop, implement, and man- uses; identify pedestrian, vehicular, and water access
age a long-term strategic plan requires committing to the site; establish open space and civic uses; and
significant resources, people, and time. A financial locate utilities and appurtenant facilities in appropri-
plan is needed to address the operating budget, ate locations.
deferred maintenance needs, and new capital invest-
ments over time, recognizing the tension between the Business Plan and Business Case. The business plan
three and the critical need to balance requirements. and business case should evaluate the various com-
ponents of the master plan and consider development
Comprehensive Long-Term Strategic Plan strategies for each. The evaluation should include an
overview of the business objectives, a concept plan,
An important and necessary part of the renaissance
development costs, project cash flows, an assessment
of Navy Pier will be organizing for and preparing a
of the sources of both public and private capital,
comprehensive long-term strategic plan. It is essential
timing, alternative implementation strategies and
that this plan incorporate the reason Navy Pier exists
deal structures, an overview of the business risk and
now and the vision of the future Navy Pier. The plan
rewards, and other relevant factors that should be
must be viewed as a strategic document that will
considered before the allocation of capital and other
evolve as the staff considers and reacts to changes in
resources. Because of the unique nature of Navy Pier
the market or opportunities that become available.
and its public purposes, the business case for imple-
The panel believes that the series of exercises associat-
menting the various components of the master plan
ed with creating this plan is of paramount importance.
should remain consistent with the overall purpose,
This strategic plan is not merely a typical physical mission, and guiding principles of Navy Pier.
master plan for land uses and facilities. Its broad-
Self-Sustaining Financial Plan and Capital Budget.
ranging components should include the purpose and
The financial plan and capital budget should address
mission of Navy Pier, guiding principles, business
a multiyear period with regard to deferred mainte-
objectives, a vision that operationalizes the mission,
nance, ongoing capital costs, and new projects. As
a business plan and business case, a redevelopment
an initial premise, the panel suggests that 10 percent
program plan, a master land use and infrastructure
of gross revenues be invested back into Navy Pier for
plan, and a self-sustaining financial plan and capital
deferred maintenance and new capital projects. That
budget. The preparation of this plan is a multifaceted
amount should be evaluated in greater detail during
exercise that requires focused leadership, profes-
the development of the strategic plan.
sional advice, and a commitment from participants
within the MPEA and its stakeholders.
10 An Advisory Services Panel ReportBenchmarking: Metrics of Success. Benchmarking vision for Navy Pier. If the board of the museum
is a self-improvement tool that organizations use to thought it valuable to engage in earnest dialogue
compare actions, processes, and outcomes so as to about the possibility of remaining at Navy Pier, the
identify examples or desired targets. It is a systematic panel would encourage the MPEA to explore how it
process for identifying and implementing best or might accommodate the museum’s goals as part of
better practices. Each component of the comprehen- the strategic planning process that has been recom-
sive long-term strategic plan should include metrics mended. Alternatively, Navy Pier should begin to
that can be used as targets for benchmarking success. evaluate other year-round, interactive, children-
Depending on the vision and mission, the MPEA may and family-oriented attractions. Given the amount
consider benchmarking visitation levels, net profit- of space currently occupied by the museum and the
ability, spending per visitor, and other basic criteria significance of this use, it is important for Navy Pier
to evaluate whether specific initiatives have been to have certainty about the museum’s relocation
successful. plans and timing.
Sponsorship. Sponsors pay a cash or in-kind fee in
return for access to the visibility and commercial
Top Five Capital Projects
potential associated with a property. Current spon- One of the major challenges presented to the panel
sorship at Navy Pier includes signage, events, naming was to identify what new elements should be incor-
rights, and other opportunities. The fees amount to porated in the pier’s offering. From its analysis of
approximately $2.0 million. Many entertainment near-term requirements and opportunities and its
venues, especially commercial attractions, generate understanding of the long-term vision, the panel be-
more sponsorship revenue. lieves that Navy Pier remains a financially stable op-
Appropriate components of the comprehensive eration that needs refurbishment and refreshing. The
long-term strategic plan should support the goal panel focused on elements that could work within
of improving sponsorship, to the extent that such a capital framework of $50 to 100 million while also
sponsorship is consistent with the mission, purpose, addressing important infrastructure-related issues.
and public expectations for Navy Pier. The panel rec- In the view of the panel, the most important priori-
ognizes that in Chicago outdoor signage, especially ties for investment, not ranked in order of impor-
commercial signs on the upper stories of buildings tance, were the following:
downtown, is minimal. Any new sponsorship pro- Deferred maintenance, facility updating, and land-
gram must conform to the regulations, norms, and scaping;
historical requirements that apply to the pier and its
lakefront location. A children’s anchor;
Long-Term Location of Chicago The Great Chicago Wheel;
Children’s Museum
The Chicago Shakespeare Theater; and
A year-round, child- or family-oriented experience
has been an important piece of the Navy Pier experi- Festival Hall.
ence since 1995. Chicago Children’s Museum, with
Deferred Maintenance, Facility Updating, and
an annual attendance of 400,000 to 500,000 visitors,
Landscaping
has filled this role. It helps to drive off-season traffic
to the pier—and thereby guest spending on parking, First and foremost, any major development operation
food, and retail. The panel believes that an anchor of must protect its investment in its existing real estate
this nature should continue to be a core component assets. This not only includes day-to-day mainte-
of the product mix at Navy Pier. nance but also involves regular updating, remodeling,
and refurbishment to keep the assets looking fresh
Because of the significant nature of the changes in and vital. The key priorities for infrastructure and
leadership at the MPEA, the panel suggests that the facility investment should be deferred maintenance,
MPEA meet with the leaders of the board of Chi-
cago Children’s Museum and share with them the
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 11The Family Pavilion
is a three-story,
150,000-square-foot
building organized in an
indoor mall format. Uses
include the IMAX Theatre,
Chicago Children’s
Museum, Harry Caray’s
Tavern, the Bubba Gump
Shrimp Co. Restaurant
and Market, a variety of
smaller retail uses, and
Crystal Gardens.
refurbishment or remodeling of the Family Pavilion,
and landscape enhancements.
Deferred Maintenance. Briefing documents supplied
to the panel noted that Navy Pier has been forced
to defer certain major maintenance functions. The
projected costs of the deferred maintenance should
be verified and the necessary work should be un-
dertaken. The panel suggests that the MPEA should
invest first in the overall foundation of Navy Pier’s
operation, protecting the original investment made
in the early 1990s.
Refurbishment or Remodeling of the Family Pavilion.
Although Navy Pier is well maintained on a day-to- Refreshes the guest circulation spaces to update
day basis, the facility overall looks old and dated. them, making them more inviting;
During interviews with tenants and the community,
the panel members heard the same thing: the facility
Considers a revitalized graphic package that
has a 1980s look and does not feel fresh. This is espe- presents a unified look and helps with the overall
cially true of the Family Pavilion. The panel proposes remodeling effort;
that while the MPEA looks at the programming strat- Considers the design and merchandising strategy
egy for the Family Pavilion, it should also undertake a for the food court; and
refurbishment design effort that
Is timed and coordinated with opportunities that
Cleans up the presentation of existing elements; are created with expiring leases.
12 An Advisory Services Panel ReportLandscape Enhancements. In the February 2010 Possibilities include Kidzania, a 60,000-square-foot
interviews, the panel members heard the same mes- offshoot of the tremendously popular La Ciudad de
sage from many constituencies: “We wish Navy Pier los Niños attraction in Mexico City; Legoland Discov-
offered a more park-like feel!” In walking the pier ery Centre, a 50,000-square-foot concept owned by
during the August visit, the panel members felt that Merlin Entertainment; and attractions licensed by
many areas would be dramatically enhanced by a either Sanrio or Hit Entertainment, both of which are
substantial landscape and softscape effort, using ma- proposing to expand in the United States.
ture trees extensively to soften the concrete feeling of
key areas of the South Dock and East End. The panel The panel believes that some alternative children’s
views this enhancement program as an important anchor concepts may not fit in the space used by
element in making the space the “People’s Pier,” a Chicago Children’s Museum. Therefore, as part of
place for relaxation, enjoyment, and access to Lake the strategic planning exercise and as discussions
Michigan. proceed with either the museum or another attrac-
tion group, the panel suggests exploring other sites
These improvements might not add immediate on Navy Pier, possibly Festival Hall.
“sizzle” to the pier. However, the panel believes that
until the MPEA addresses the key infrastructure and The Great Chicago Wheel
maintenance issues at Navy Pier, it will only delay Chicago is the birthplace of the Ferris wheel, which
work on important aspects of the pier’s long-term was introduced at the 1893 World’s Fair. Today, the
vitality—aspects that will cost even more to address 45-meter wheel at Pier Park is used by about 750,000
at a later date. guests each year and stands out prominently on Navy
Pier. The panel believes very strongly that Navy Pier
Children’s Anchor
should be represented by a spectacular wheel. Ferris
As indicated in the call-to-action issues, the panel wheels are part of the rich history of Chicago, and
believes that an interactive, year-round, child- or the Great Chicago Wheel would become the icon for
family-oriented attraction is a very important anchor Navy Pier moving forward. The business model for
for the Navy Pier experience. If the leaders of Chicago the Great Chicago Wheel should be patterned after
Children’s Museum thought it valuable to engage in the London Eye, a highly successful attraction built
dialogue about remaining at Navy Pier, the MPEA on the River Thames for the 2000 Millennium. It
should work diligently with them to explore the pos- offers stunning, unparalleled views of London and
sibilities. Alternatively, the MPEA should explore a has become a must-visit destination for tourists.
variety of other child- or family-oriented attractions. Each cabin on the Great Chicago Wheel should be an
enclosed space, air conditioned in the summer and
heated in the winter. Capacity in each cabin should Navy Pier offers a variety
be approximately 15 to 18 guests. of walking experiences
with views of the city and
Lake Michigan.
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 13The panel considered a number of locations for the strategy to expand its outreach by building a new
new wheel, but on the basis of a wide range of factors theater of approximately 950 seats, with rehearsal
believes it should replace the existing Ferris wheel. rooms, workshop space, and desperately needed of-
This new attraction has several benefits: fice space. However, the theater needs capital invest-
ment from outside sources to enable the development
It creates a year-round attraction on the pier that and construction of an expansion to its “campus.”
will drive shoulder season and winter visitation (as
the Eye does in London). The panel believes that the MPEA should consider
funding some portion of this expansion as part of the
It offers increased daily capacity, especially during Navy Pier capital program. Doing so would provide
the peak summer season. several benefits:
It could command a higher ticket price, because it It would add approximately 300 new events on the
would be considered a premium experience com- pier, attracting an additional 200,000 to 250,000
pared with the existing Ferris wheel. visitors to the pier.
The Chicago Shakespeare Theater It would build on Navy Pier’s contribution to the
The Chicago Shakespeare Theater is an important arts community in Chicago.
element in the overall cultural fabric of Navy Pier
It would allow the theater to expand its nation-
and Chicago. The theater, which moved to the pier
ally recognized arts-in-education program, Team
in 1999, has built a vibrant complex that presents
Shakespeare.
live shows as well as workshops and other outreach
programs. In 2009, it held 600 live events in its exist- It would further strengthen what has become a
ing facility (a 500-seat courtyard-style theater and a very important tenant at Navy Pier.
200-seat studio theater). It has developed a business
The interior of Chicago
Children’s Museum.
14 An Advisory Services Panel ReportThe panel believes that the concept of building this
expansion in the general area occupied by the Skyline
Stage makes sense, with the theater positioned more
to the north and east end of the site, allowing for
the development of a larger open plaza on the south
side of this part of the pier’s second level. The panel
believes that the opportunity for viewing the Chicago
skyline from Navy Pier is one of the pier’s major
competitive advantages, and the views of Chicago
from this part of the pier are spectacular. The panel
proposes the following key uses of this plaza:
Possible queuing or staging area for the Great Chi-
cago Wheel at the west end of the area vacated by
the Skyline Stage,
Outdoor park setting, and
Outdoor dining experiences serving all visitors, es-
pecially guests of the Chicago Shakespeare Theater
and the Chicago Wheel.
Festival Hall
At 170,000 square feet, Festival Hall is an underuti-
lized space. Some of its uses are popular and mean-
ingful for Navy Pier visitors and tenants (for example,
Winter WonderFest), but as a convention and trade
show facility, it is programmatically inconsistent
with the Navy Pier experience. A variety of alterna-
tive uses for Festival Hall have been discussed and
should be considered.
Live-Performance Venue. The MPEA has received
preliminary expressions of interest from entities
interested in exploring the possibility of repurposing
part of Festival Hall into a 4,000-seat performance
venue, primarily to host concerts. Assuming a suit-
able agreement can be put in place, the panel believes
that, if the facility were to be used 150 to 200 days
annually, the incremental foot traffic could create Ice Skating Rinks. Ice skating rinks, which have Festival Hall is a large
demand for additional food and beverage and retail relatively low capital operating cost requirements, under-utilized space
locations. Because some visitors never venture be- could help create additional reasons for year-round that can accommodate
yond the Family Pavilion, the panel also believes that visits and generate further incremental foot traffic a variety of temporary
a live-performance venue is one of the better op- at minimal risk. A number of use scenarios could be uses.
portunities to psychologically extend or enlarge the developed, ranging from seasonal use in the center
perception of Navy Pier. Parking, which is absolutely and eastern bays of Festival Hall to a more permanent
essential for a live-performance venue, is located arrangement in the center bay that would leave room
close to the western end of Festival Hall; this parking for periodic exhibition space or construction of other
is ideally suited to accommodate visitors’ use of the alternative uses.
west bay of Festival Hall.
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 15Sports Courts and Facilities. Similarly, sporting Other Issues
facilities that feature changeable flooring (accommo-
dating basketball, tennis, skateboarding, volleyball, A variety of other site issues require consideration
and the like) could provide the ability to host adult by the MPEA. Although not as critical as the call-to-
leagues, local tournaments, and competitions. The action items and the top five capital projects, these
consideration of such uses should be part of the larger issues are nonetheless important and need attention
comprehensive long-term strategic plan. The courts in preparing the comprehensive long-term strate-
and play area would have to be coupled with other gic plan. These issues need to be considered sooner
uses, because the panel is not convinced that on their rather than later.
own they would be effective or the best uses.
Traffic-Pedestrian Interface
Children’s Anchor. The importance of the children’s Pedestrian traffic conflicts with vehicular traffic at
anchor attraction has already been established. Given the entrance to Navy Pier. To improve traffic flow
its adjacency to parking, Festival Hall could be suit- and guest safety, the panel recommends resolving the
able for a larger children’s destination attraction. conflicts by revising the circulation as highlighted
Retail Shops and Restaurants. Any of these program- below:
ming ideas could affect the need for associated retail Relocate the transit terminal to the southern por-
shops and restaurants, as well as the type and mix of tion of Gateway Park;
such shops and restaurants. Quality restaurants with
a successful regular clientele could begin acting as Relocate the taxi staging stand area to the southern
draws in their own right. portion of Gateway Park; and
Redirect parking access to Streeter Drive and East
Grand Avenue.
The refurbished food
court is essential to
the future health of
Navy Pier.
16 An Advisory Services Panel ReportExcellent water access
for both boaters and
visitors is essential
in any redevelopment
plans for Navy Pier.
Crystal Garden Water
The MPEA asked ULI to provide recommendations for Navy Pier possesses two key competitive advantages
alternative programming approaches for the Crystal that are unmatched in the Chicago market. One is the
Garden. The panel found the Crystal Garden to be a spectacular views of the city skyline: Navy Pier is the
very inviting space (especially during the cold winter only place in the city from which most residents and
months) that works for special events. That said, the visitors can see these views. The other is access to
panel believes that potential programming alterna- Lake Michigan: Navy Pier is the only place in the city
tives cannot be developed or analyzed until the MPEA from which most residents and visitors can go out on
has resolved the critical programming issues with the the water. The panel suggests that the MPEA create
Family Pavilion, including the tenancy of the Chicago places on the pier where the dock is lowered to bring
Children’s Museum. After the MPEA has a better people closer to the water level (taking into account
understanding of the tenants that may be adjacent to the fluctuations in the lake level over time). These
the Crystal Garden, it can then develop a program- water-level platforms could include small green areas
ming approach. as well as small cafés, giving visitors a more intimate
relationship with the water and further supporting
Hotel the mission of Navy Pier as the “People’s Pier.”
A boutique hotel of 200 to 400 rooms has been
On-Pier Transit Funding Opportunities
discussed as either a possible reuse of part of Festival
Hall or an adjacent feature to it. A hotel was in fact The panel recommended that the MPEA investigate
a use suggested by the 1989 ULI panel. This panel the availability of funds for the construction of a
likewise believes that a hotel is an appropriate public people mover or tram to transport pedestrians from
use for Navy Pier and that it is consistent with the one end of the pier to the other. Such a system would
pier’s public purpose. Combining the operation of the be located on the North Dock, either at dock level or
Grand Ballroom with a hotel catering/sales function on an elevated platform at the second level.
could be fruitful, but the panelists are not convinced
of the viability of a hotel as a business at the pier. The
panel suggests that the MPEA evaluate this option
further as part of its strategic plan, discuss possible
options with developer-operators, and, on the basis
of market feedback, pursue an opportune strategy for
a hotel.
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 17Background and Context
The Panel’s Assignment from alternative uses for either the Skyline Stage or the
space that it currently occupies.
February 2010
“Navy Pier is and
A
Enhancing Space for Existing Core Business:
should remain gainst the backdrop of Burnham’s enduring Consider the tenancy of the Family Pavilion and its
1909 vision and the objectives established by current condition, and recommend an approach
primarily a public the 1990 MPEA concept plan, the sponsors to redevelopment there. Evaluate and consider
place for the use asked the panel to advise the MPEA on how any opportunities to increase visitation to the
and enjoyment best to redevelop Navy Pier to become a world-class Crystal Garden. Consider opportunities to add or
destination tourist attraction. change amusement attractions in Pier Park, either
of Chicago-area
When the panel met in February 2010, the MPEA to increase revenue or to extend the season, and
residents and visi- specifically think through the possibility of adding
asked the panel to consider five core issues as part of
tors to the Chicago its effort to understand Navy Pier and assist in estab- a larger, year-round Ferris wheel somewhere on
Navy Pier. Consider opportunities to increase the
region. Its revi- lishing a vision for it:
utilization of the Grand Ballroom.
talization should Accommodating an Increase in Visitor Volume,
Revitalizing and Enhancing Open Public Space
reflect and build Especially in Shoulder Seasons: Consider carefully
and think broadly about the amount and location and Waterfront Access: Think through ways that
upon its unique Gateway Park can be enhanced as a green space or
of parking that serves Navy Pier, now and in the
location in the context of increasing visitation and executing on destination park without building any permanent
structures, how to incorporate green concepts into
Lake, its historic a redevelopment plan for the pier. Evaluate the
alternatives that have been suggested over time, new development, and how to improve access to
significance to the the waterfront.
which range from keeping the current parking
City and the region amount and configuration in place to remov- Branding: Recommend ways that Navy Pier can be
and its historic ing it from Navy Pier entirely and placing it in an branded to sharpen its message and reflect its posi-
architectural underground landscaped structure in Gateway tion in the marketplace.
Park. Evaluate and think through ways to alleviate
silhouette.” congestion and minimize the conflicts between
vehicles and pedestrians in Gateway Park. Evaluate
The Panel’s Findings
—MPEA concept
plan, 1990 the relevance of various forms of mass transit in Today, Navy Pier contains many elements, but its
getting visitors to Navy Pier and as a way to pro- constituent parts could be described as the following:
vide on-pier transit.
Gateway Park, the landscaped entrance to the pier,
Repurposing Underutilized Facilities: Consider
the most appropriate uses for Festival Hall, recog- which has transit, vehicular, and pedestrian activity;
nizing that although the facility is underutilized, The Family Pavilion, featuring Chicago Children’s
activities take place there that are important Museum, the IMAX Theater, and retail, restaurant,
generators of visitation for Navy Pier. Recognize and food court offerings;
that the market for convention and meeting space
is significantly different than when the facility The Crystal Garden, an enclosed park;
was originally constructed. Consider whether the
North Dock should remain the primary vehicular
Pier Park and the Ferris wheel, presenting amuse-
and service access point. Think through moves ment opportunities;
that can activate this part of the pier. Consider
18 An Advisory Services Panel Report Skyline Stage, an outdoor performance venue; Offerings
Chicago Shakespeare Theater; Overall, the variety and diversity of the offerings
at Navy Pier, many of which are popular with the
Festival Hall, which provides 170,000 square feet public, seem disjointed. Many of the concepts are
of event and conference space; tired and, at a minimum, need significant rethink-
The Grand Ballroom, a historic structure used for ing and reinvesting to make them popular with more
special civic and private events; potential patrons.
Parking structures; Many interviewees commented that they visit the
pier for particular events but do not linger to explore
The South Dock, the linear walkway along the other offerings. In other words, the program ele-
southern edge of the pier; and ments do not appear to generate spill-over activity
for each other. Many potential customers view Navy
The North Dock, a long service drive on the north Pier as a great family attraction but not that appealing
side of the pier. for those who do not have children. Many Chicago
Design residents do not view the pier as their own; however,
they do consistently regard it as a proud symbol of
The Headhouse and Grand Ballroom have been prop- Chicago.
erly recognized as excellent architectural bookends of
the pier, reflecting Chicago’s long-standing com- Some interviewees stated that one of Navy Pier’s
mitment to high-quality design; however, the pier’s weaknesses is that it has a dual identity as a venue
other architectural elements are somewhat unin- that provides open spaces for the public while featur-
spired. There appears to be no overarching theme, ing a wide range of revenue-driven offerings. The
and many regard the architecture as a hodgepodge of panel sees this mix as one of Navy Pier’s strengths.
disparate concepts. No place else in Chicago offers visitors the chance
to interact with the water while enjoying wonder-
Clearly, the water is the unique and distinguishing ful views of the city’s marvelous skyline in a public
characteristic of Navy Pier. Although the South Dock setting.
Street experience provides a positive connection to
the water, most of the pier’s interior elements face Above all else, Navy Pier has a seasonal quality.
inward, away from the water. The interior experi- During the warm months, it is an extremely active
ence lacks an airy, open feel. Many have described space, drawing vast numbers of people to stroll, eat,
the overall space configuration as claustrophobic. In entertain themselves, and take in the breathtaking
addition, the pier does not adequately take advantage water views. However, during the fall, winter, and
of the views available to the north, east, and west. early spring, the pier is not well used—meaning that
In particular, the spectacular views west toward the most of its revenue must be generated during a very
city skyline are a missed opportunity. The docking of short period.
large ships and boats adjacent to the South Dock also
The panel noted the following reactions to specific
impedes meaningful pedestrian views of the water
program elements:
and the skyline.
Chicago Children’s Museum is a strong draw for
From a circulation perspective, the lack of good
families.
north–south travel paths inhibits a strong pedestrian
experience. Even the most intrepid pedestrian would The retail area and food court is tight and claustro-
find it challenging to circumnavigate the entire phobic. The retail offerings are generally low-
pier. The pier also lacks substantial and significant priced and directed mostly at tourists.
open-space venues, which inhibits opportunities for
outdoor festivals, and other open-air activities. In The Crystal Garden is a nice amenity, but some
addition, the North Dock is primarily a service drive question the utilization of the space.
and does not engage the water well or offer an ap-
pealing pedestrian experience.
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 19 Pier Park is appealing to children, but it is a bit Park. These obstacles force visitors toward two pri-
crowded and cluttered. mary choices: drive to the pier and pay the high cost
of parking, or visit a more accessible and affordable
The Ferris wheel is an obvious draw and a critical attraction. Thus, the absence of a strong transit op-
symbol of Navy Pier. tion and the lack of a unifying streetscape experience
Skyline Stage is too small and, being open to the from Michigan Avenue may inhibit the potential to
elements, too seasonal. significantly increase the visitation of the pier.
The Chicago Shakespeare Theater is a real asset Operation
that should be built upon. The operations team at Navy Pier can take credit
for a very clean experience. Despite the substantial
WBEZ, a public radio station, is clearly an asset
amount of deferred maintenance, the operations
for the city, but although it is consistent with the
team does a great job of maintaining the space avail-
pier’s civic purpose, it seems disconnected from
able to it at the pier. The staff is engaging, enthusias-
Navy Pier’s overall entertainment focus.
tic, and passionate about the pier.
In Festival Hall the need for meeting and conven-
In interviews, vendors and larger-scale consumers of
tion space may be redundant because of the recent
the Navy Pier experience complained about the high
expansion of McCormick Place.
cost of doing business on the pier. In addition, retail-
The Grand Ballroom is an impressive and recogniz- ers and other vendors expressed concern about the
able architectural element but is underutilized. MPEA’s lengthy and cumbersome procurement and
Although some of that underutilization is clearly leasing process. Lower costs and fewer administra-
a reflection of the economy. The dock outside the tive hurdles could attract more events, more custom-
Ballroom should never be closed; it should always ers, and more retailers.
be available to the public.
A Vision for Navy Pier
The on-pier parking structures provide a necessary
amenity to assist in the attraction, retention, and Chicago is the home of big, audacious ideas, matched
success of the offerings at the pier. only by the deeds and accomplishments of her
people. Legendary favorite son Daniel Burnham cap-
Branding and Marketing
tured the attention and imagination of the world by
The Navy Pier brand is not well defined in the eyes daring to dream and having the courage and fortitude
of consumers. To some, the pier is strictly a family to make that dream a reality. In keeping with Navy
destination; to others it is a public gathering place. Pier’s illustrious history, the panel suggests recom-
This diffused definition complicates, if not inhibits, mendations on the caliber of the original plan, to
the ability to run a focused and effective marketing develop a new vision for the pier.
program.
Many times in the world of place making the “big
Accessibility idea” focuses on architectural solutions. Other times
it focuses on a major new destination element that
The panel observed that the cost of parking ($24.00
becomes the focal point of the place. For Navy Pier,
on weekends) is nearly prohibitive. In many ways,
the panel concluded that the big idea required a more
the high parking cost is a barrier to entry for Navy
holistic approach, one that encompassed the pier as a
Pier—effectively an admission price. This is a potential
gathering place for people and as a renowned tourism
constraint on significant growth in attendance, given
destination. The big idea must combine architectural
that driving is the way most people access Navy Pier.
and programming solutions. Most important, it must
The connections to Navy Pier, in particular across create a clear identity for both Chicagoans and tour-
Gateway Park and from Michigan Avenue, are prob- ists, an unambiguous brand for Navy Pier.
lematic. Reaching the pier from these locations re-
quires walking past some surface parking lots, under
Lake Shore Drive, and through the sizeable Gateway
20 An Advisory Services Panel ReportIn interviewing the many stakeholders, the panel ket interests and builds on potential markets. This
members heard a continual theme: Navy Pier should mix mitigates the risk of failure for any one use.
reflect Chicago, because after all, this is the people’s
pier. Chicago is one of the world’s most beautiful and Current Challenges. Visitation at Navy Pier grew
exciting cities. It is a unique combination of com- steadily after it reopened in 1995. Estimated visita-
munity, culture, and commerce in the heartland of tion in 1995 was 3 million. By 2000 that number hit
America. Yet the panel could not find a single loca- 9 million, well exceeding predevelopment forecasts.
tion in the city where the many attributes of Chicago Since 2003, however, visitation has slipped gradu-
are on display in a central locale that offers culture, ally. Likely because of the economic impacts of the
sports, dining, shopping, entertainment, music, and recession, visitor volumes declined to 8.3 million in
the wonderful asset that is Lake Michigan. The panel 2008; 2009 saw that level decline another 3.1 percent,
sees Navy Pier as that location, a place where locals to just under 8 million. Visitation figures for 2004 to
and tourists alike can “celebrate Chicago.” 2009 are presented in figure 1.
Taking that as a new vision, “Celebrate Chicago at “Tourist” Nature of the Pier. Interviewees made
Navy Pier” creates a unifying identity and serves as a numerous comments about the “tourist” nature of
focus for the programming recommended in this re- Navy Pier. According to visitor intercept studies per-
port. The panel envisions the creation of “neighbor- formed by the MPEA, most visitors to Navy Pier are
hoods” on the pier—outdoor hubs surrounding newly Chicago-area residents. During 2009, fully 73 percent
designed parks or plazas. The activities throughout of visitors originated in the metropolitan region, with
these neighborhoods would incorporate elements
that reflect all that is Chicago. Figure 1
Navy Pier Visitation, 2004 to 2009
To foster the development of this unifying identity,
the panel envisions architectural changes that will Year Estimated Attendance (Millions)
create a more inviting environment at Navy Pier and
2004 8.8
the development of iconic architecture that reinforc-
es this celebration of Chicago. The rest of this report 2005 8.6
expands on these ideas and offers recommendations
2006 8.8
on how to revitalize Navy Pier and reinvent this
important Chicago asset as a place that expresses the 2007 8.4
historic vision of its creator and caretakers.
2008 8.3
Market Context
2009 8.0
To assess the market potential of Navy Pier, the panel
reviewed and analyzed a variety of data. The unique Source: MPEA; ULI.
nature of the site, its buildings, and its location de-
mand a special set of uses. Given the size of the site,
Figure 2
the long-term success of redevelopment will require
Visitor Origin, December 2008 to December 2009 (%)
multiple uses that support each other, enabling the
pier to change over time as market support for differ- December March July December
ent types of uses ebbs and flows. Around the country, Origin 2008 2009 2009 2009 Average
strong developments and communities—those that
attract and retain users, tenants, and residents over City of Chicago 57 39 37 54 43
several years—benefit from combining commercial, Chicago Suburbs 27 34 30 30 30
residential, arts, and other uses in a high-quality
environment that encourages pedestrian activity and Other U.S. 13 26 28 13 24
interaction. On the basis of its market review, the
Foreign 2 1 5 3 3
panel believes that the Navy Pier site is well suited to
sustain a mix of uses that both captures current mar- Source: MPEA; ULI.
Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois, February 21–26, 2010, August 29–September 1, 2010 21Figure 3 Figure 5
Navy Pier Visitor Characteristics Visitor Origin by State, 2006 to 2008
Origin Share (%)
Average Age 36 years
Chicago Region 26.2
One Group Member Under Age 17 51%
Remainder Illinois 5.0
Group Size of Three or More 72%
Wisconsin 16.4
Women Visitors 58%
Indiana 13.0
Average Income $67,400
Michigan 8.6
Income Under $40,000 27%
Ohio 4.2
Income $75,000 and Over 21%
California 3.7
Spent More than Three Hours 89%
Iowa 2.9
Source: MPEA; ULI.
Georgia 2.7
Missouri 2.6
Figure 4 Texas 1.7
Leisure Person-Stays, Seasonal Variation
Total 87.0
Share of Leisure
Season Person-Stays (%) Source: Chicago Convention & Visitors Bureau; ULI.
Note: Based on trends from 2006 to 2008. Chicago region based on
Winter 20 2008 data only.
Spring 25
Summer 34 The public nature of the pier is also evident in the
makeup of typical visitors, in terms of their diversity in
Fall 21
age, family size, income, and ethnicity (figure 3). This
Source: Chicago Convention & Visitors Bureau; ULI. diversity is both an opportunity and a challenge, in that
Navy Pier has become many things to many people.
27 percent coming from other domestic or foreign lo- Low Ebb during Off-Peak Season. As part of the
cations. Even though overall visitor volumes increase market review, the panel also examined overall sta-
dramatically during the summer, this mix of visitors tistics on Chicago visitors. According to the Chicago
does not change materially. Convention and Tourism Bureau, 44.2 million people
visited the region in 2008. The majority (74 percent)
Lack of Repeat Visitors. Perhaps one of the most sig- came for leisure-oriented purposes. Seasonal visita-
nificant take-aways from the MPEA’s ongoing work tion for leisure is split surprisingly evenly for most of
is that visitors do not come to Navy Pier frequently. the year, with a dip in winter, as would be expected.
According to the surveys, 67 percent of visitors The breakdown of the leisure market based on 2008
come to the pier only once or twice a year. This small data is shown in figure 4.
number of visits is significant, given the variety of at-
tractions on Navy Pier and the high concentration of
area residents in the overall number of visitors who
use the asset.
22 An Advisory Services Panel ReportYou can also read
